May 5: "Arrival" and Apocalyptic Cycles

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The film "Arrival" arrived in due course in my mailbox in blu-ray disk form last week, and I had a chance to catch up on all the hubbub that Richard, Marcilla and New Day discussed here last November:

http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/arrival-space-jesus-anyone.1847/

Joe and I are going to discuss the movie, and its view of cyclical time, in the context of the 2000-year processional cycle and the book of Revelation. We'll also discuss Richard's post, Apocalypse How.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The heptopod's (aka septopods) confusing communications almost caused a global, 'apocalyptic' military conflagration. With this it is interesting to observe Trump's CHAOS strategy with most everything he does as President, but especially apropos here, to his friendly messages to global despots all the while irking our close allies.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-risks-emboldening-despots-with-praise-935146563990
The above opens with a comparison to Dean Acheson's misstatement supposedly triggering the Korean War.

Trump has told South Korea that we must tear up our trade agreement with them, and that they must pay for the THAAD missile defense system. And prior stated that he learned from a 10 minute conversation at Mar-a-lago with the Chinese premier that Korea had once been part of China.

Of course, the heptopods intentions were good and they didn't intend to confuse humans, but what can we say about Trump's modus operandi? He is on both sides of most every issue like a quantum mechanic on a beastly mission.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Regarding the employment of zodiacal ages within western religious iconography and related religions, the transition from the older bull to the ram is much more visible with the Mesopotamian and the Egyptian. Judaism is a synthetic construct of the Egyptians, hence the very name 'Moses'. They used Moses (son) instead of Ben.

I have never claimed that Moses and the Exodus were tied to the millennial system that I can only see, so far, starting with the transition from Saul to David.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Joe should read Barbiero's book which is the best general explanation for the nature of Freemasonry and Mithraism to Christian religion and culture, the 'Jews' and Euro-royalty.

Barbiero occasionally falls into the trap of employing the name 'Jews' in relation to the Euro-royals, because his thesis is that they are the descendants of Josephus Flavius's Hasmonian kin. He makes the common and intended mistake of conflation, which allows attention to be deflected or defused onto common people who self-identify themselves as Jews (of Judah).

Being an Edomite, in the OT construct, means he descends from Esau and not from Ishmael, therefore not an Arab. Esau was the brother of Jacob, who the OT says is to get his inheritance back from the descendants of the sons of Jacob.

In this regard discussion of Ashkenazi and Sephardic lineages become irrelevant, despite the fact that the 'Jew's' holy book says that the Ashkenazim are not Jews, except the odd intermarriage of Hosea with the whore Gomer (Hosea 1).

We are talking about extreme elites versus everybody else, including the Jews. Elites who made themselves intermarried with the pharaohs and the Roman emperors, created or helped create Xianity, and then became the Euro-royals. Doing so they also employed Mithraism and Freemasonry to organize themselves sub rosa. And that is why the latter don't look like 'Jews', but rather like you and me - Much as Nicholas DeVere said.

Shlomo Sand (an Ashkenazi) stated that the Ashkenazi were Turko-slavs. Understanding this it should be obvious that an extreme elite 'clan' would never have sufficient numbers and must employ others to hide behind and to deflect blame upon.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The two Beasts, one from the Sea and one from the Land, and are the servants of Satan, a separate entity that Christ must fight. As Josephson said there can be multiple Antichrists.

There is 1,000 years for Christ and 1,000 years for Satan (Christ's brother) in the Revelation construct.

Barbiero explained the real Hasmonean lineage of the Normans (not Vikings) and with this we have a much stronger basis for the Norman conquest which started in 1066 and finished, roughly, in 1070. Subtract 1,000 years.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Regarding the employment of zodiacal ages within western religious iconography and related religions, the transition from the older bull to the ram is much more visible with the Mesopotamian and the Egyptian. Judaism is a synthetic construct of the Egyptians, hence the very name 'Moses'. They used Moses (son) instead of Ben.
The narrative tying of the 'Judaic' construct to the Ram of Aries begins with Abraham's attempt to sacrifice Isaac, but instead the angel of God has him replace Isaac with a conveniently trapped ram nearby. The Jews blow the shofar ram's horn as part of their central religious iconography even today. They 'failed' to recognize the new fishy age ... because this was the latest villian role assigned to them in the new paradigm, consistent with the ubiquitous biblical depiction of the descendants of Judah as being morally retrograde.

Thus, while Jesus, of the lineage of Judah, via David, gets hung on a cross, the elite Jewish priests, the Hasmonean kin of Josephus (and Paul) go off to Rome to create Jesus' religion under the aegis of the Flavians. As Barbiero discusses they undertake a brilliant long term campaign to insinuate themselves as the royalty of Europe and thus also heavily occupy the European gentry. Hello Emilia Bassano -- and the real gentiles [sic]. As Jerry stated in the show, the tribal lineages of Jacob are somewhat metaphorical and really meant to indicate the general plan of affairs. Hence, the tribe of Judah (the Jews) is subservient to Ephraim, ... and the Levites. We are being told there is an elite, and this is what we see with the Roman treatment of the kin of Josephus, as well as the Herodian 'Edomites'. The 'Jewish' bible states that the descendants of Esau (Edom) will regain their inheritance which had been stolen from them, and ended up with Ephraim, not the Judaites. But if one lazily conflates the names, as was the intent, then one will deflect their attention to the Jews, and not to their masters. This is really why Nicholas DeVere stated that his kind were the real players of the Bible (albeit he seems to have indulged in yet another such identity confusion for the same purpose).

In the Book of Judges, ironically it is the tribe of Ephraim which suffers the consequences of the shibboleth, but in the larger construct it is the tribe of Judah which ends up long term as the tar baby in the briar patch, while the elite 'priestly families' who don't self identify as 'Jews' went on to form the upper tier of Europe. These latter employ whatever iconography is convenient to their aim, whether it be Judaic, Egyptian, Pythagorean, etc..

In any case, I don't think the millennial construct was used to co-ordinate such historical events until after the massive 18th and 19th Dynasty events (and including the Hyksos period just prior) culminated in the collapse of the Late Bronze Age ... namely, the entire collapse of the Eastern Mediterranean region - excluding Egypt.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Being an Edomite, in the OT construct, means he descends from Esau and not from Ishmael, therefore not an Arab.
OK, I was confused about this on the show. The Edomites were the biblical characters legendarily descended from Esau. Wiki says they initially inhabited an area south of Judah, Moab and the Dead Sea, and then migrated north into southern Judah after the 6th century BC, where they were known as Idumaeans. After the Jewish war of 70 AD, it's said that they were never heard from again in history.

Their former territory was gradually taken over by the Nabataeans, who were thought to be an African people who had adopted Aramaic language and culture. These Nabataeans were the proprietors of Petra, established ~300 BC in the southern part of the territory formerly occupied by the Edomites.

Herod the Great was said to be the child of Antipater the Idumaean, with Cypros who was a Nabataean.

At this late date, it's not obvious to me that we can say who these people really were, or how they are related genetically to modern populations. The genetic reality is certain to be messier and more complex than the biblical abstractions and metaphors.

ironically it is the tribe of Ephraim which suffers the consequences of the shibboleth
The consequences being that they were ethnically cleansed and replaced, right? Hence the new (elite) replacement population was able to enjoy the benefits of the ancient "blessing", while being genetically almost entirely unrelated?
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
OK, I was confused about this on the show. The Edomites were the biblical characters legendarily descended from Esau. Wiki says they initially inhabited an area south of Judah, Moab and the Dead Sea, and then migrated north into southern Judah after the 6th century BC, where they were known as Idumaeans. After the Jewish war of 70 AD, it's said that they were never heard from again in history.
Neither were the Hasmoneans eh? ;)

Yet the Talmud calls the Romans ... Edomites. A Rome by any other name.

It is interesting to note that Petra, from its architectural motifs, can be seen as possibly the most cosmopolitan and multicultural city of ancient time. This, because it was a central trade route and because of the natural protection provided by the canyon that its in, and it had a highly engineered water system (like the Romans). It was also extremely rich, and straddled the time of Jesus by several centuries on each side. Legend has it that this is where Moses and his 'Hebrew' compatriots hung out for much of the 40 years in the Wilderness.

At this late date, it's not obvious to me that we can say who these people really were, or how they are related genetically to modern populations. The genetic reality is certain to be messier and more complex than the biblical abstractions and metaphors.
However, as Barbiero points out, the resulting Christian society of Europe ended up as a rigid caste system, aka feudalism, and the nobility that arose up from these were not from the natives, chose to represent themselves with OT Hebrew tribal iconography, and engage with themselves in every manner except being overt Jews. They, via Roman imprimatur, forced Xianity on everyone with no exceptions except the Jews who served as their foils. So who were these strange people then, and did Josephus's family and kin just vanish into the dust leaving only Roman elites to append Flavius to their names?

BTW, Barbiero provides several examples of high ranking 'Jewish' families converting to Xianity, and this enabling their rise to Euro-nobility and even the papacy in short order. This further builds on Shahak's similar claim of a close relationship.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The consequences being that they were ethnically cleansed and replaced, right? Hence the new (elite) replacement population was able to enjoy the benefits of the ancient "blessing", while being genetically almost entirely unrelated?
The story only indicates that a large number of Ephraim's warrior class men were killed via this, not that there was a complete cleansing. I suspect, within the larger context, that the tribe of Ephraim was probably one of the indigenous Canaanite tribes, and the shibboleth was performed on them to remove most that were resistant to the new order being imposed. Especially since the capital, Shiloh (Bethel), was in their territory. And yes, then whatever population remaining adopted the old identity, perhaps which some of the indigenous yet retained.

Importantly, the texts state that:
  • Esau (the Edomites .. Herodians) will regain his/their inheritence (Abraham's Blessing that Jacob stole)
  • That Ephraim (of Joseph) and Judah will later become re-united
    • Pope John XXIII stated that he is the Jews' 'Joseph' shortly after WWII
And so if I am correct that the Roman Sabines are Ephraim and/or Edomites, then the Herodian and Roman collaboration with Josephus's Hasmoneans can metaphorically represent the two 'Hebrew' tribes reuniting and Esau regaining his inheritance.

Of course, one must overcome huge mental barriers to believe that the elite Romans were really akin to the elite 'Jews', really Ephraim, and same for the Edomites. But this is only a barrier in one's mind, .... which is how deception works. But as one comes to understand by reading Barbiero, and ask the old question: "Is the Pope Catholic ... or Jewish?" The answer is yes.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
If Barbiero is generally correct in confirming the SSSM model, then this seems to me to provide a huge danger for Joe's CCM model where his 'Jews' are seeking revenge on the 'Gentiles'. Here with Barbiero, as the SSSM predicts, the elite 'Jews' are the very elite 'Gentiles' that they are supposed to be getting revenge upon under Joe's CCM. This hilariously makes them the classic 'self-hating Jew', if only they were common 'Jews' to begin with (historically from day one).

If the real agenda, as is stated in the OT and the NT, is global domination then why would the OT authors' descendants want to get revenge if they also created Xianity with or without the Romans (whom I say were their cousins)? No, instead it is all part of one construct, and we are witnessing the effects of people who massively employ the concept of 'controlled opposition' as a means to get their ends. As the Jesuits say, "Black is white and white is black whenever in service of the Church". The 'Church' meaning the cause, and the colors meaning the same duality as the symbolism of the Freemasonic checkerboard floor.

The central problem of the CCM is that it starts off with a flawed premise that was fostered by the Catholic Church and its consistent theology that carried through from the OT canonic foundation of Judah hooking up with what he thought was a hooker, but was really his disguised daughter-in-law, Tamar. The darkly hilarious result was the 'Jews'. The failure to start such analysis from scratch leaves one with a huge a priori mote in the eye.

As a result of all the analysis, the people that run the show, behind the veil of Oz, are agnostic (as to a particular god) or atheist, as they created the notion of the Abrahamic god in the first place. Their goal is to ultimately achieve global domination, and from their historical behaviors they are out to profit themselves disproportionately (their perceived entitlement) along the way and once globalization is achieved.

Let's remember that historically Christianity was a brutal caste system, and the illusion of Cultural supremacy that Joe (and Trump's base) bewails losing, was built up to recreate the image of the glorious Roman Republic. But the pagan Republic had to be destroyed to make way for the new imperial order, which germinated the 'wonderful' caste religion of Christianity. The same people orchestrated every microsecond of it, behind the scenes.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
All of this literary and textual analysis is all fine and good, but Joe's question will be, how relevant is all this with respect to recent events over the last few hundred years? And, is this testable by any objective means, such as DNA analysis? Or, as an alternative to DNA testing where we don't have samples available, I've suggested that in many cases we have alleged genealogical data for the players, which I argue is generally reliable.

At the end of the medieval period, perhaps we can all agree, the Ashkenazi Jews were a distinct population that were isolated in Northern and Eastern European ghettos. Because of this cultural isolation, there was a high degree of inbreeding within this population, over a period of perhaps a thousand years. Similarly, the Sephardic Jews were isolated in ghettos in Spain and North Africa, with a high degree of inbreeding. And, the royal and noble class of Europe was perhaps the smallest, most culturally isolated and most inbred of all human populations at that time.

At their origin, I suppose it's possible that these Jewish populations were cultural and political constructs. But after many generations of interbreeding in the ghettos, the construct (if that's what it was) must have taken on a genetic reality of its own. Or at any rate, modern genetic studies generally accept the idea of Ashkenazi or Sephardic genetic types, however "fuzzy" the boundaries might be. The existence of a medieval royal and noble interbred population is pretty much an uncontested fact, but I'm not sure to what extent the DNA of that gene pool has been studied.

As Richard has often noted, the European royal population frequently, and strangely, intermarried with "Jews". However, if I understand correctly, our speculation is that these "Hofjuden" were actually not genetically related to the "Ashkenazi" or "Sephardic" Jews, but rather they were genetically indistinguishable from their European royal partners. In other words, they could be considered as "crypto" royalty, who were pretending to be Jewish, but were not -- at least not genetically speaking.

Fast forwarding to the modern day, the "CCM" and "SSSM" models are similar in that both of them postulate that political, economic, and cultural power are vested in some relatively tiny elite group, organized as one or more "secret societies". And, of course, both the CCM and SSSM theories would be equally regarded as crackpot in polite society, for that reason. But that's beside the point, here. The question is, how can we test which theory is correct? (That is, since we all here are convinced it must be one or the other.)

First question: would the two models identify more or less the same set of individuals as being "the people that run the show"? It seems to me that it's possible to have endless arguments over who is really important, vs. who is a fellow traveler or pawn or dupe. The only objective approach seems to be to consider tangible evidence of power, such as money, titular position of authority, or cultural influence. But surely if we evaluate by such criteria, we would be at risk of sweeping many outsiders to the secret society, into our dragnet?

Second question: do powerful individuals, in general, fall into any of the genetic classes defined above? That is, are they identifiably either Ashkenazi, Sephardic or "Royal Blue" blood? Or, is the situation generally more diverse or complex?

Third question: Is there evidence of extensive cross-breeding between the Jewish ghetto gene pool, and the blue-bloods? Or can we verify the idea that the Hofjuden were and are basically crypto-Blues?
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
As Richard has often noted, the European royal population frequently, and strangely, intermarried with "Jews". However, if I understand correctly, our speculation is that these "Hofjuden" were actually not genetically related to the "Ashkenazi" or "Sephardic" Jews, but rather they were genetically indistinguishable from their European royal partners. In other words, they could be considered as "crypto" royalty, who were pretending to be Jewish, but were not -- at least not genetically speaking.
Barbiero's contention is that the entire Euro-noble class is/was descended from Josephus's Hasmoneans, and that they displaced the Romans and their barbarian vassals. Whereas, I suggest that they were more likely married variously into the Roman nobility along with the Herodians.

Where the 'revenge' motivation might have a leg to stand on is exemplified by the extreme antipathy of the Eastern European Ashkenazi against the Western European Ashkenazi as detailed by Black in his Transfer Agreement. Here the 'emancipated' German Ashkenazi were living in a virtual paradise till Hitler's rise, and the Eastern Ashkenazi highly resented the disparity between them. It was the Eastern Jabotinski-ites that became today's Israeli Likud. And so by extension, one might (poorly) extrapolate a wider antipathy of Jews against Euro-nobility, such as the Russian branch. But this can only be taken to be true for one segment of even the Ashkenazi and for one segment of the nobility, as for the latter the relationships with Jews were quite good.

As to Joe's question about the last centuries, he still, to my knowledge has yet to come to grips with the clear role of the Freemasons and Jesuits in the founding of the USA. Since, under the CCM and other Traditionalist variants, the 'Jews' run the Freemasons and the Jesuits, then did they suddenly loosen their grip so that we could gain that decade (or less?) of Cultural height that is being attacked? Where the Freemasons involved in the French Revolution against the poor Sun Kings or not?

Oops, here are those Jews attacking the poor nobility in their evil efforts to Liberalize and Liberate humanity, destroying the divine caste system with their Egalitarianism. Hmmm, which side to stand on now? Of course, one is left with these paradoxes, including where did those poor nobles go? Well, except for those Rothschilds, who do much of the Vatican's banking and such.

Kingships and queenships are, in the end, just offices like the American Presidency, albeit the former are dynastic. The real power is in who gets to wield real power, even if it is sub rosa? Or, especially if it is sub rosa? In the modern age, it was inevitable that the royals would be generally phased out, or submerged from view at least. This leaving such as the Windsors (Germans, 'Jews', or ?), the Savoys of Italy, and a handful of others to put on appearances.

I suggest that the best way to proceed, in lieu of Joe's DNA and unfettered access to all of the Vatican Library, is to create a huge Coherence Database of contradictions and confirmations of various groups, as to their narratives, motivations, positions, actions, etc.

Joe asks, why do all these Freemasons appear to be so 'gentiley' instead of so stereotypically 'Jewish', or Turko-slavic? Well?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
As to Joe's question about the last centuries, he still, to my knowledge has yet to come to grips with the clear role of the Freemasons and Jesuits in the founding of the USA. Since, under the CCM and other Traditionalist variants, the 'Jews' run the Freemasons and the Jesuits, then did they suddenly loosen their grip so that we could gain that decade (or less?) of Cultural height that is being attacked? Where the Freemasons involved in the French Revolution against the poor Sun Kings or not?
One might argue that it was pressure from the vast majority, perhaps organized by middle class leadership, that led to the downfall of the crowned heads of Europe, as well as the feudal system more generally. The Freemasons and Jesuits, working sub rosa for the benefit of the royals and nobles, were fighting a desperate rear-guard action to preserve the true power and wealth of the noble classes, while creating a simulation of democracy and free enterprise. Thus, these Freemasons and Jesuits were the original "controlled opposition".

Now, owing to present-day deteriorated conditions, the Freemasons and Jesuits and the elites in general, are once again gaining the upper hand. Thus, they are increasingly able to reveal themselves in their true colors, as neo-reactionary advocates of the return of hereditary royalty and feudalism.

In other words, the existence of some sort of cultural peak from which we are being degraded from, could be the result of historically circumstantial factors related to the development of population, education and technology, rather than due to any change in the basic hierarchical structure of society.

Or, I suppose someone might argue that "gentile" and progressive factions operating within the Freemasons and Jesuits, have gradually been overcome by "Jewish" reactionary and revenge-driven influence. The problem with that argument is that, at least for the Jesuits, the evidence for crypto-Jewish involvement is strongest right at the founding, in the early 16th century.

Joe asks, why do all these Freemasons appear to be so 'gentiley' instead of so stereotypically 'Jewish', or Turko-slavic? Well?
I would question whether the actual typical difference in appearance between the Ashkenazi and any other white European group, is great enough that judgements based on "stereotypic appearance" are likely to have any validity whatsoever.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I would question whether the actual typical difference in appearance between the Ashkenazi and any other white European group, is great enough that judgements based on "stereotypic appearance" are likely to have any validity whatsoever.
It is true, and we are learning more all the time about how much goyim genes have been 'converted' into the Jewish gene pool over several thousand years. This via The Invention of the Jewish People, When Scotland was Jewish, and now The Secret Society of Moses, and the Book of Hosea (chapter 1) about the Gomerites, The Thirtheeth Tribe about the Khazar (Ashkenazi) conversion, and the Book of Genesis genealogies denying Gomerites including the Ashkenazi from being Semitic.

Nevertheless there are some significant remnants of the purer Eastern European Ashkenazi population that are easier to spot as being stereotypical. Ironically, these traits don't match up well with the stereotypical traits (olive Arabesque - Semitic, hooked nose, menacing) that the old school Catholic Church would peddle in order to whip the faithful into a hateful frenzy at Passion time (as discussed by former Catholic priest James Carroll in Constantine's Sword).

With the latter, Barbiero has provided a new insight as to why the Catholic ecclesia would be saving an ephod (the Jewish high priest's robe) relic at the Cathedral in Trier, Constantine's favorite city before Constantinople. Ostensibly it was Jesus's robe symbolizing his being king and high priest of the Jews, the latter being a seemingly spurious additional claim. And in any case, the Romans in the gospels were mocking his alleged earthly kingship. But with Barbiero's data and analysis we can see that this robe would symbolize much more as to who runs the Catholic Church ... and importantly, why this church retained such as the books of Maccabees in its canon. It explains why the Carolingians, the Capetians, and the Angevins would include the name, Hammer, amongst many of their honorifics, as this is reputedly what Maccabee means.

Before Barbiero I had considered the claim that too many authentic Jews such as the Sephardim had been killed during the Crusades and such as motivation for the need for replacement 'Jews' to fulfill the Catholic theological need for living Jews to live amongst them as 'bad examples' as sufficient. But when one considers Barbiero's analysis that we are only concerned with one elite clan only, that managed to become Europe's entire aristocracy, then we have two motivations. The first, of replacement 'Jews' was needed for shear numbers sake, and secondly, to help conceal that the royals were truly of a different lineage than the common people of Europe.

With this latter point, we know that it was long considered that the nobility had different, more refined, facial features than the peasant class. For instance, the noble nose was longer, either straight or ironically 'aquiline' (curved like an eagle's). Roman nobles, pharaohs, and even George Washington had the aquiline nose.

Washington, the Freemason, and good Norman boy, can be seen in Barbiero's light as fulfilling the same general Conquest modus operandi found in the Norman Conquest, Barbiero's 'Hasmonian' (I include the Romans and Herodians - Esau) takeover of Europe, and our take on the Egyptian (and Mittani - Hyksos) Conquest and covert takeover of Canaan.

Now we have Yah as an Egyptian moon god, perhaps the junior moon brother of Thoth and Khonsu, and hence justification for the name Yahud, the priests that answered to Amenhotep III. Like the (Templar) priests that only answer to the White Pope, or the Black Pope (the Yesu). Freemasonic lodges operated under the imprimatur of the royalty -- to do their bidding, not to revolt against the rather successful plan. The hierarchical and secretive manner in which masons operate, like the Mithraic 'lodges' before, and the Roman ecclesia (till just recent time), serves to prevent rebellious takeover.

Now we can see Albert Pike's prediction of three world wars in a different light as well, and the various aspects of 'liberal' emancipations. This in view of the contingent needs in a coming New Age, where the superficial 'visible' nobility must sacrificed, while their elite kin rule via hidden levers. Today our 'democracies' are controlled by such hidden hand means rather effectively. Who needs kings and queens then? Money for nothing and chicks for free.

Yet, I am to believe that the "Jewish' Jesu and gentry class 'Jews' have decided (~500 years ago, at least) to rebel against the evil Roman church and the 'Gentile' nobility for their descended (Flavio - Roman) guilt in destroying Jerusalem and their society? Yet, we are still marching to globalism as the imperial Romans were doing, the Church was doing, the gentil Euro-nobles were doing. We got the first two world wars, the second of which resulting in the re-establishment of Zion, and so that the Jesuit's Futurist End Times can result in the destruction of the second Third Temple in 2066 CE.

Those crazy Jewish rebels, they are even happy to host the drooling Christo-Zionists that already want to destroy their desired new temple. I smell a script.

Trumpf has his golden Flavian hair dye and his romantic daughter is a matralineal Zelnick? This is a script that a silly Martian should love.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Nevertheless there are some significant remnants of the purer Eastern European Ashkenazi population that are easier to spot as being stereotypical.
Reviewing the genetic research, such as Eran Elhaik's 2016 paper which cites this one by Anna Need as well as many others, there does seem to be a consensus that the Ashkenazi represent an endogamous population whose genetic signature can be distinguished in the autosomal DNA. However, Elhaik's paper makes the point that this clarity doesn't necessarily extend to individuals who are "half-breeds" with only one or two grandparents drawn from the pureblooded Ashkenazi population. Also, the usual y-DNA and mt-DNA markers are pretty much useless for identifying Jewish people. (See Falk 2015). And as Elhaik's blog points out, it's only possible with extremely careful state-of-the-art testing, to distinguish between Ashkenazi and other Turks and Armenians.

I've been catching up on "Transparent", which is said to be the most Jewish show on television. I had convinced myself that the Pfefferman family all look Jewish. And you would think that with all the Jewish actors that supposedly are dominating the TV industry, they could come up with some Jews to play these parts. But it turns out that Gaby Hoffmann (Alli) is at least half Catholic and does not admit to being any part Jewish; Amy Landecker (Sarah) is only 1/4 Jewish; Jay Duplass (Josh) is Catholic, and Kathryn Hahn (rabbi Raquel) is Catholic.

we are only concerned with one elite clan only, that managed to become Europe's entire aristocracy
We do know that over the centuries, this elite clan of European aristocracy became a highly endogamous and interrelated community. But we don't necessarily know that they actually originated from a single localized population. There's a lot of genealogical data available about this community. The best databases, such as ww-person.com and www.genealogics.org, have over 700,000 names in their indexes. A smaller database called royal92.ged has about 3,000 names, focussed on royalty and their immediate relatives. There's an interesting graphic tool at http://www.datasketch.es/october/code/nadieh/ that enables a visualization of the degree of interconnectedness among European royalty. One other site, www.thepeerage.com, also now has about 700,000 names in the database, but they mention in the FAQ that they calculate consanguinity whenever they can, and that they can name 3,910 ancestors for Prince Charles.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I've been catching up on "Transparent", which is said to be the most Jewish show on television. I had convinced myself that the Pfefferman family all look Jewish. And you would think that with all the Jewish actors that supposedly are dominating the TV industry, they could come up with some Jews to play these parts. But it turns out that Gaby Hoffmann (Alli) is at least half Catholic and does not admit to being any part Jewish; Amy Landecker (Sarah) is only 1/4 Jewish; Jay Duplass (Josh) is Catholic, and Kathryn Hahn (rabbi Raquel) is Catholic.
Absolutely, many individuals are difficult to distinguish one way or the other. But, since when is 'Catholic' an ethnicity Jerry? As Barbiero, and Joe, discuss there were many 'Jews' who converted and have stayed so.

Funny that the Datasketch project uses a star and constellation paradigm for the royals. This evokes the Mormon theocosmology and George HW Bush's "thousand points of light" reference.

And it concludes:

This genealogy is far from complete, or perfect, probably many more interconnections exist, but this peek into the history of Europe's royals shows that it's all one big (happy?) family.
Too bad it doesn't list the Savoys of Italy or go back much farther than Eleanor of Aquitaine.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
But, since when is 'Catholic' an ethnicity Jerry? As Barbiero, and Joe, discuss there were many 'Jews' who converted and have stayed so.
The definition of an "ethnic group" (from dictionary.com) is "a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like..." so Catholicism definitely qualifies. But, it's a much larger and less inbred group. Once Jews leave the fold, there's no obvious reason why they shouldn't intermarry with the surrounding Catholic population.

Too bad it doesn't list the Savoys of Italy or go back much farther than Eleanor of Aquitaine.
ThePeerage.com has a page on Italian rulers including the Savoys: http://www.thepeerage.com/king_italy.htm

Here's their page for Eleanor of Aquitaine: http://www.thepeerage.com/p10202.htm#i102014

They have a complete pedigree for her, although this is getting well back into the time of the alleged Phantom Middle Ages.

I'm not finding any work at all about autosomal DNA analysis of these folks. Their y-DNA haplotype is mostly R1b, but that's not saying much: about 80% of Western Europeans are R1b.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
It seems that there was some sort of title inflation going on, at least in some countries, by the 18th century. Wiki says that 15% of the population of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were nobility, and that pre-revolutionary France had 300,000 nobles.
 
Top